Vatican Diplomacy: Cardinal Parolin

With his ideas and vision, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, reveals and clarifies the Holy See’s geopolitics. Firstly, as experienced diplomat, he never forgets to be above all a Priest. Moreover, in his being a Witness to Faith, he never forgets to be an Apostolic Nuncio, an ambassador of the Vatican State, but especially of the Catholic Faith and of the Universal Church. It comes to mind the extraordinary work carried out by St. John XXIII as Nuncio in Turkey and later as a Pope’s diplomat in Paris.

Diplomacy as evangelization and relations between States and between them and the Vatican as relations enlightened by the Gospel’s eternal principles. Cardinal Parolin, faithfully follows the Holy Father – and this is a guarantee not only of justice, but also of holiness. The loyalty to the Pope is certainty that the Church, one and only one, is the Bride of Christ, not a mere international organization and a State. The geopolitical ideas of the Secretary of State are very clear: as a result of his experience in Nigeria, his attention is particularly focused on the evolutions and crises of the sub-Saharan world – hence on the new African mass Islamization.

Thanks to his diplomatic experience in Mexico, between 1989 and 1992, he has developed the particular legal and religious wisdom, which is needed to deal with political regimes having a lukewarm attitude vis-à-vis the Church and old resentment towards the Catholic religion. Just think of the tragedy of the Mexican Catholic rebels known as Cristeros, between 1926 and 1929, resulting both from the US Protestant pressure and the Masonic radicalism of the Mexican ruling class. The current anti-Catholic harshness of many countries, the real “fight against Christ” of large parts of contemporary culture and media find in Secretary of State Parolin an experienced and wise priest. Almost an exorcist. In fact, if we look to the cultural importance and spiritual depth of the foreign policy currently implemented by the various States, we realize that they are really reduced to the minimum.

The obsession for economy and trade, resulting from an exclusively export-oriented global economy, both in rich and in “developing” countries, is matched by the emptiness of soul and thought. Our era is characterized by a silly and superficial collation of cultural and spiritual artifacts, different from one another and put together randomly and in bulk, as if this were a guarantee of “pluralism”. Pope Francis, who comes from Argentina, will certainly remember a beautiful tango of another Italian immigrant, Santos Discepolo, entitled cambalache, a sort of “random collection of items in bulk.”

With a view to treating this disease of the spirit and the mind, resulting precisely from the abandonment of the word of Christ, Cardinal Parolin uses dialogue – the beautiful tradition of Vatican Council II and of St. John XXIII – and the slow transformation of attitudes and preconceived ideas. Just think of the missions of the Secretary of State in Venezuela, since 2009, as Apostolic Nuncio – in a phase in which Chavez radicalized his Bolivarian “socialism” and the anti-Catholic polemic – as well as the Cardinal’s activities in Vietnam and China in the early years of this century. In those negotiations the Secretary of State followed two typical Vatican behaviors: being always autonomous from blocks and alliances, which creates trust and respect in every geopolitical area and, in particular, the specificity of Catholicism.

Catholicism is not a religion which becomes State and politics, but a universal rule whereby we can establish “the things that are God’s” and “the things that are Caesar’s”. The separation that the Son of Man establishes between the two domains, the earthly one and the domain of what belongs to God, is not yet well understood in the West, let alone in areas where Catholicism is a minority religion. I am certain that Cardinal Parolin knows it very well. In a wise speech delivered at a conference organized by “LiMes” he demonstrated to what extent the Church is far from being just a “bastion of capitalism” or of the Western civilization.

The Social Doctrine of the Church, from the Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum onwards, is completely autonomous from secular economic theories. In this regard, Cardinal Parolin’s passion for St. Pius X is a further guarantee of the Church’s religious and institutional autonomism. It comes to my mind the extraordinary work of the so-called “Camaldoli Code”, a text on which the Catholics who entered the political scene after 1945 rebuilt Italy and brought it to unprecedented economic, social and cultural levels. The Secretary of State knows very well, and often reiterates, that making the Church be autonomous from its origin in the European context, which is now a “mission land” like many others, is a two-edged sword. In fact the issue lies in adapting Christ and His Word to all peoples of the Earth, but without easy adjustments and simplifications. Possibly for some temporary political support. This will be the issue on which the opening between the People’s Republic of China and the Vatican will be played.

The Holy See knows very well that, without a regular bilateral relationship between China and the Vatican, the former will have greater difficulties in moving in the West and in overcoming – even for the Catholic and Christian part of the Chinese people – the “materialism” which could ruin its social and even economic fabric. President Xi Jinping has always spoken of a society based on the “Three Harmonies”, where Confucian – and in some ways – Taoist traditions are integrated into what we, Westerners, would call China’s “sustainable development”. Nevertheless, without the Catholic part of its population, respectful of Peter’s Primacy, the project of the current Chinese leadership becomes lopsided and scarcely credible. On the other hand, Cardinal Parolin may remind the Chinese leadership of Saint Paul’s many statements on the respect for the “external” law, which allows the balanced development of God’s Word among His people. If the Vatican succeeds in settling its dispute with China, as is very likely right now, the Holy See will be again one of the great global strategic centers, from where all the strings for ensuring peace in the world will be pulled. Peace, too, is a goal of the Secretary of State and of Pope Francis.

Especially today, when the globalization-Americanization of the last few years of the 20th century has given way to a new strategic fragmentation, peace becomes an essential and topical theme. Cardinal Parolin has often repeated that, considering all the crises which have broken out recently, he is seriously worried about the situation in Ukraine and Latin America. South America, the region with the highest percentage of Catholics among its population, is floundering in a severe economic crisis, resulting from the new relations between North and South America and the local effects of the two great financial crises of 2006 and 2008. The economic crisis is followed by – or paves the way for – a cultural and spiritual crisis which tends to take away the Latinos’ Catholic soul to replace it with a series of globalist and materialist myths. Just think of the drug traffickers’ economy in Mexico, as well as the expansion of the Satanist and necromantic rituals related to the drug traffickers’ world. As underlined by the Secretary of State, think also of the European spiritual poverty, now reduced to the role of polarizing the Islam problem between an obsessive refusal and a frightened and uncritical acceptance.

The Church, however, knows very well how to assess the Islamic phenomenon. It can speak with the Arab and Koranic world and it is attentive to the Shi’ites and Sunnis’ foreign policy. It knows how to manage the relations with both of them without being subjected to both Islams’ initiative, unlike what happens with the “secular” Europeans. Much of the Church knows that the radical anti-Islamism of many Western “intellectuals” or the atheism à la carte of many maîtres à penser speaks of Islam to achieve the West’s de-Christianization.

Recently Cardinal Parolin has also reminded us of the positions of the Blessed John Paul II on the war in Iraq and the great work of opening to Hebraism and the State of Israel that the Polish Pope began and completed successfully. The two actions are not separate: on the one hand, the Church supports the interreligious dialogue, even at the cost of too much simplification; on the other, it maintains a special relationship with the Jewish “elder brothers”, a relationship which is both political and doctrinal.

In the Western desert we are going through, even anti-Semitism is resurging, as a token of the fear of Islam or as primary and irrational hatred for all monotheistic religions – and hence for the first among them. I am sure that Cardinal Pietro Parolin will be the man of God who will solve these and other problems, while the emptiness of soul spreads in the West and, despite everything, the Christian Church is bound to be the only major religious power in the world.

Reassessing Realities of a Multi-Polar World Order

Multi-polarity has become prominent
feature in the day to day vocabulary of diplomats, statesmen and policymakers. Former
United States (US) Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton at her state visit to
New Zealand was one of the first to observe “a shifting balance of power to a
more multi-polar world as opposed to the Cold War model of a bipolar world”.
The preceding United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon stated at Stanford
University in 2013 that we have begun to “move increasingly and irreversibly to
a multi-polar world”. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, declared at the Russia-China
Conference 2016 that “international relations have entered into a conceptually
new historical stage that consists in the emergence of a multi-polar world
order and reflects the strengthening of new centers of economic development and
power”.

These manifestations have since then revealed
a general acceptance of the multi-polar notion as a concept that is unavoidable
in the contemporary international dynamics. However, when it comes to the
transitions and inevitability of the power structures, there is little
agreement among the international states.

The former Secretary of State, choice of
words “more multi-polar world” reflected a reluctance to acknowledge the
complete disappearance of unipolarity. A much stronger resistance to forego
unipolarity remains embedded in the Trump administration vision to “make
America great again”. Lavrovhas declared that “unipolar world order as
untenable” in current climax of power politics. Nevertheless, pundits such as Robert Kaplan continue to question, whether there is an overlap of unipolar and
multi-polar world realities; where US continues to retain the supremacy in
military realm of affairs and is anticipated to remain so for a considerable
future time, whereby China leads in the economic realm. Additionally nations in
the former Third World are acquiring status as rising powers, notably India who
have over the years with smart diplomacy have acquired global outreach to shape
international agenda.

Lessons from History

The Westphalian system originating in 1648
has organized global politics on the basis of sovereign states and their
relations for over three and a half centuries, despite successive world orders
and configurations of power. The changes brought in by various international
developments although bringing changes to power distribution, did not have an
impact on the essence of Westphalian ideals. The advent of nuclear weapons in
the 20th century, did however set stage for mutually assured
destruction (MAD) which dissuades nuclear weapon states from wars. It is the
reason that historians and strategist provide for the demise of Cold War
hostilities, from bipolarity to unipolarity, brought in by rather peaceful
means and did not involve hegemonic wars as documented in preceding times.

Several occasions in history, add to the useful
insights for a modern world in transition. Two centuries ago, a unipolar order came
to a conclusion, giving rise to a multi-polar system with the defeat of
Napoleon by the combined strength of Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia. The Congress
of Vienna, provided for a reorganization of European geopolitical frontiers
diplomatically that brought relative stability in the continent for coming
decades. The Concert of Europe, as it was known, was the precursor to the
high-level conferences to which world leaders and diplomats are accustomed to
this day. The Holy Alliance, which nevertheless was repressive and conservative
in methods is considered by western historians as pioneer for
preserving peace.

France defeated in battlefield, several
times in post-Napoleon was not subjected to a humiliating treatment by the
victors. This was due to the fact that the objective of the other European
powers was to thwart a return to unipolarity.
It was the exclusion of the Ottoman Empire from the negotiating table
that sowed the seeds for the Crimean War, a prelude to the First World War of
1914. Multi-polarity for most part of the history has been reactionary rather
than progressive, and hegemonic rather than democratic. In Europe, cooperation
was provided to further silence and repress the dissent contributing towards
nationalist uprisings. The Versailles Treaty, in the aftermath of First World
War was notoriously less efficacious than the Vienna settlement in advancing
stability, the most obvious reason being the punitive treatment accorded to a
defeated Germany. In stark contrast, lessons to some extent were learnt and the
agreements emanating from World War II, were a new example of magnanimity
towards the defeated, a wise and pragmatic step. The Charter of UN, limited the
use of force and required self-restraint on the part of the victorious powers.
It was a commendable step in international relations, at least in theory if not
in practice, as has been demonstrated over the years.

21st Century Realities

A number of characteristics in the 21st
century that were absent from previous transitions provide for a number of
unique opportunities and challenges. The increasing global interconnectedness
among states and societies via trade, investment, and media strengthens the
interdependence nature of relation providing an impetus for peaceful transition.
On the other side, this increase in connectivity may be exploited by warring
state and non-state actors for their destabilizing agendas. Among the most
notable unifying elements is the challenge posed by global warming and climate
change. For the first time in human history, community of nations are forced to
confront the stark reality that redemption requires cooperation. It affects
countries large and small independently of their level of development.
Similarly, is the global drug problem that also comes under the paradigm of “common
and shared responsibility”. The appearance on the world stage of numerous
non-governmental organizations promoting causes from disarmament and
non-proliferation to free trade represent an evolution of history that cannot
be overlooked. Differently from the 19th century’s euro-centric multipolar
experiment, a 21st century multipolar world order will be universal in scope.

Conclusion

The most original feature of the new configuration
of power in the 21st century, is the fact that a non-Western power
will assume after the many centuries, the leading position at helm of world
economy. China’s economic growth is anticipated to translate into increased
diplomatic influence and power. A resurgent Russia is also expected to wield
considerable military might. European Union in the wake of Brexit, to survive
needs a renewed sense of cohesion with Germany and France taking the lead role.

In the scholarly literature, there is no
consensus on whether multi-polarity is unstable than bipolarity or unipolarity,
as is popularly believed. Kenneth Waltz strongly was in favor of “bipolar order
as stable”. On the other side, Karl Deutsch and David Singer saw multi-polarity
as guaranteeing a greater degree of stability in an article published in 1964, “Multipolar
Systems and International Stability”. Simon Reich and Richard Ned Lebow in
“Goodbye Hegemony” (2014), question the belief whether a global system without
a hegemon would be unstable and more war prone.

Related

India’s Ministry of External Affairs is one of the best in South Asia

In his exclusive interview for PICREADI Alexey
Kupriyanov,Russian
expert on India, reveals some secrets of Indian soft power and states that
India’s External Affairs is one of the best in South Asia. But why?

Is India the subject
or the object of soft power? How does India see its soft power approach in the
world and does it see it at all?

India as any other country is at the same time both the object and the subject.
With great importance attached to India by the great powers trying to ensure
for themselves India’s support, the country is the object. It is well proved by
the US soft power programs targeted at India. Numerous meetings, promotion of
dialogue with experts and Indian youth, and business trips invitations are used
by the US.

At the same time India is the soft power subject. That is why we should
apprehend its political worldview. Their world consists of three concentric
zones: the immediate neighborhood, extended neighborhood zones and the rest of
the world. The immediate neighborhood zone includes the Indian subcontinent and
all the neighboring islands, the extended neighborhood zone includes Eastern
Africa, Central Asia, the coastal areas of the Arabian sea, Middle East and
South East Asia. That is the zone that is influenced upon by India’s soft
power. India is not able to use the hard power there due to the lack of
resources, as well as necessity and will. So, the soft power develops.

Undoubtedly its influence spreads upon the rest of the world: it is enough to
recall Indian films, Yoga days and the demonstration of its beautiful, old
culture which dates back to 3000 B.C. Anyway, in the immediate neighborhood and
extended neighborhood zones the Indian soft power programmes are much more
extensive and detailed. The Indians organize military and police trainings,
young politicians courses and etc., as a result a number of pro-Indian experts,
officials and politicians emerge.

How is the
system of public diplomacy structured in India? Does the government play
significant role in this structure?

India’s system of public diplomacy works intensively through Indian Embassies,
to which cultural, press and educational attaches are attached. Indian embassy
maintains closest contacts with Indian, pro-Indian and India-linked circles, or
at least tries to establish contacts with them. India will use everything that
can be used to achieve the goals of public diplomacy. ISKCON represents a good
example of this trend. In India itself they are regarded not so well, but
abroad they represent Indian culture and so they are treated differently,
because if you have something to do with ISKCON you will be pro India a priori.

The Raisina Dialogue, which has been held for some years, is a key expert
event in the field of international relations and diplomacy. What is the aim of
this events? To improve the image of the country? Or to organize international
cooperation?

In fact, it is not the only one such event in India, there is a lot of various
events. Raisina Dialogue is the most well-known one. Schools of young politicians are held in India
on the regular basis. This instrument is now intensively used by both the West
ant the East. Generally, big forums and conferences invite foreign experts to
establish relations with their Indian counterparts. Young politicians schools
last for one month or month and a half, there are lectures and the participants
communicate with each other.

I know those who participated in these programs, and they got quite impressed,
because it was the first time they visited the country and lived in it. This
people leave the country with absolutely different feelings, because they
already know the country, they love it and leave the country being an advocate
of the Russian-Indian friendship, for instance.

So, the government of India is
willing to develop the country’s positions in terms of soft power?

That’s true, Indian Foreign Ministry rigorously follows this sphere and
successfully implements all the necessary programs. Indian Foreign Ministry is
truly one of the best in South Asia.

In spite of the fact
that the idea of non-violence is a traditional leitmotif of Indian policy, the
most privileged strategic partnership with Russia develops not in the soft
power, but in military-technical cooperation. What are the prospects of
diversification of Russian-Indian partnership?

In fact, it is already quite diversified. Our cultural and scientific center (Russian
Center for Science and Culture in New Delhi – “CD”) proactively works on strengthening of our culture
ties and has already achieved considerable success. The ground is fertile
there. Cultural links between Russia and India date back to the late 19th
century, we should remember that Tolstoy’s ideas shaped Gandhi’s worldview.
There are a lot of Soviet textbooks, printed in the Soviet Union in Indian
languages, which were used by several generations. Russia’s image in India is
still very positive, mostly thanks to this background.

Does it
influence the youth as well?

Sure, it influences the youth less. First, our work in this aspect is not
enough, second, back then we were a superpower and now we are not. It is clear
that the youth incline towards the US, but with great influence of their
families and social attitudes, the country has positive perception of Russia.

A lot of Indians visit Russian Center for Science and Culture in New Delhi
leaded by Fiodor Rozovsky to learn the language, Russian culture and national
dances. One of the central streets in New Delhi is called Tolstoy Marg, there
are monuments to Tolstoy, Pushkin, in Nehru park there is a monument to Lenin,
with floral breathes. For sure India is interested in Russia as well as Russia
is interested in India. Cultural ties are okay, but economic ones are much more
fragile.

China is far richer, but India holds all the nonfinancial actives and is able
to carry out religious projects in South East Asia.

Russian-Indian
partnership is developing against escalating Indian-Chinese confrontation on a
great number of strategic issues (differences on the “One belt one
road” initiative, etc.). There is a confrontation in cultural areas as
well. May India take advantages of the drawbacks of Chinese model? In which
countries it might do it?

Firstly, we should clarify the terms. India isn’t Chinese adversary, foe, it is
Chinese rival in some infrastructural and political influence projects in South
East Asia and border areas. India doesn’t strongly oppose the Belt and Road
project. It is against China using disputed territories, as the China –
Pakistan Economic Corridor goes through the lands over which India claims its
sovereignty. China didn’t asked permission of India to do so. It represents an
acute political issue, but there is no existential confrontation. If this issue
is resolved, the problem will cease to exist.

Generally speaking, culturally India and China have been closely linked for a
long period of time. It is enough to recall the evolution that underwent the
image of bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara after it had negotiated the Himalayas, had
feminised and had turned into the Godness of the hearth Guanyin.

Their economic ties are of the same importance. China is a major exporter of
goods in India and one of the major investors into Indian economy. Despite all
the differences, the countries continue to trade and the turnover is rapidly
rising. So, we should discuss China-India rapprochement, as the Doklam
confrontation was set aside in the context of prime minister’s Modi visit to
Wuhan and rising cooperation.

Indian – Chinese confrontation in the soft power sphere can hardly be
discussed, as the countries offer fundamentally different product. There are
countries oriented towards China, there are countries oriented towards India,
some countries manage to successfully combine these directions. China is far
richer, but India possess all the non-financial actives and may carry out
religious diplomacy projects in South East Asia. Small countries try to get on
with both countries, for example in some infrastructural project they rent a
port for reconstruction to China and the nearby airport to India.

One of the largest elements of soft power is the higher education. What
about Indian soft power implementation through education?

It is all right. India invites foreign students, and there is nothing difficult
in going to India to study, as they have a lot of educational programmes.
Jawaharlal Nehru University, the University of Delhi and all the major
universities exercise programs for foreign students. They are backed by the
government.

There is an opinion that India could
promote its own model (including the global governance model), which is
different from the liberal Western one and the Chinese authoritarian one,
through education. Is that true?

To do so, India should first make up such model. I would argue that the Chinese
model is an authoritarian model. On the contrary, China undertakes attempts to
create “a community of shared future for mankind” and accuses Western
countries of authoritarianism and neocolonialism. Nowadays China is proactively
inviting students from the Third World countries to train them as pro-Chinese,
but on the other hand China isn’t interested in these students building
specific African socialism under the auspices of a local Communist Party. It is
mainly aimed at developing communication with Chinese people and promoting
cooperation of China and their country of origin. India is doing something
similar, it trains pro-Indian personnel, which transmits Indian influence and
advocates friendly relations with India.

In case of India, Indian diaspora’s potential is of particular interest (It
is one of the largest in the world). External policy of Indian prime minister
Modi features direct appeal to Indian diaspora overseas. How does the diaspora
influence Indian image abroad?

Firstly, as the Indian diaspora is so numerous, the appeal to it is a permanent
feature of Indian policy. It has been shaping since Indians were settling down
in the Indian ocean region, exercising their soft and not-so-soft power in South
East Asia, establishing Indian and Buddhist kingdoms, settling down in Eastern
Africa before the European reached the region. Under the British Empire it
scaled up with British hiring Indians and sending them to the most remote
corners of the vast empire. This is how Indian colonies were established in
Barbados, Fiji, developed in Eastern Africa and in the Gulf countries.

The diaspora’s potential is quite a difficult question. Diaspora is one of the
major sources of money, particularly the diasporas in rich countries, such as
the Gulf countries. Indians go there to earn money, but they have no civil
rights there and barely integrate into local communities: Indians can’t be
granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia and so they live in the country as workers.
They send money to India.

In the US Indians integrate into society and step-by-step become more Americans
than Indians. There was a wide spread opinion that Indian diaspora is
exceptionally large and powerful in the US. Indeed, it is huge and some of the
representatives of the diaspora occupy quite high positions in the Senate and
the Congress. But the US Indians are americanised.

The result of this phenomenon is evident in the outcome of the attempts to
exempt India from US sanctions, which would have been introduced, if India had
bought the S-400 missile system. And all of a sudden Indian diaspora proved to
be totally useless in solving the issue. A great number of articles by
distinguished americanised Indians calling to stop putting pressure on India
were published in Indian and US top media resources, in The Diplomat, NYT and
others, but it produced no results. It became clear that Indian diaspora on
which so many hopes were placed turned out to be useless in solving conflicts
of interest.

Indians that are engaged in public affairs in the United States put the US
interests over Indian and consider the US-India rapprochement through the lens
of US interests. So, India managed to suspend the sanctions without diaspora’s
help, but thanks to the highly important geopolitical interest of containing
China secured by Pentagon and the Department of State, which needed India to be
friendly neutral. This impotence of the diaspora should be reflected on.

In other countries the character of diaspora’s influence is much more specific.
The inability of diaspora to get along with the local population of Fiji
constitutes continuous problem for Indian government. Indians living in the
Middle Eastern countries become a financial source for the country, but once a
war starts India evacuates its citizens spending a great deal of money, as it
happened in Yemen.

What is more Indians left some colonial heritage, which is particularly evident
in Eastern Africa. When the British colonised Eastern Africa, Indians were much
more loyal to the British and so they became merchants, policemen, minor
officials, that is why when the liberation movements started, they were
sometimes treated even worse than the British. For instance, Indian diaspora
failed to survive in Zimbabwe; in the South African Republic, vice versa, the
diaspora is thriving and is engaged in political affairs. Somewhere the
diaspora is economically powerful, but totally passive from the political point
of view, somewhere it is all around.

In Russia Indian
diaspora is not so large. Could it be used as a soft power instrument in
Russia?

There are Indians who settled in the Soviet Union, who studied here, got
married, born children, and got russiafied. They have a significant role in the
Russia-India rapprochement. These are businessmen, journalists.

There are several reasons why the diaspora in Russia is not so large. Firstly,
language barrier, secondly, the climate. Indians suffer from the lack of sunny
days in winter more than from cold. Finally, we have a state dominated by a
major nation unlike in the US, for example. In the Los Angeles you’ll see an
American nation shaping in real time by Afro-Americans, Koreans, Chinese, Latin
Americans and other peoples, so Indians will have this sense of belonging. In
Russia the vast majority speaks Russian, there is a tiny minority of migrants
from the non-CIS countries. There is an Indian diaspora in Russia and it is
living quite good, but politically it has no influence. Their main role is to
establish relations. It helps others, maintains relations with the motherland.

In terms of soft
power, private media in India is of particular interest. One of the recent
examples is the so called “modimania”. From your point of view, why
this phenomenon has emerged?

First of all Modi is well received by the diaspora. When he visits a country,
he is cheered as national leader, under whose governance the country is
transforming into a great power.

Modi as a politician is quite interesting personality. He is as powerful, as
those who made new Indian history: Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi. Under the
last prime minister Manmohan Singh, characterized by Indians as a weak leader,
some issues were talked down, he wasn’t able to act strongly. He should take
into account interests of numerous small groups, particular personalities. That
resulted in stalemate. He was quite predictable, the country has been
developing economically, but he wasn’t able to undertake sharp policies.

Modi is so different from him. He is perceived as “a miracle worker”:
he launched the “India cleaning programme” (creating a system of
public lavatories and street cleaning) in 2004, which his precedents weren’t
able to realize. Taking into account the scale of the problem, it seemed to be
impossible, but in 5 years he managed to put it in practice. Nowadays India
differentiates from the India of the past. Modi promises to provide everyone
with gas, water, and electricity before his term ends. Modi is criticized, but
his achievements should be acknowledged.

Modi’s charisma is evident in his speeches. He feels the audience quite well,
which is so rare. He is able to seize the interests of the audience, its
attention and speaks about the issues it is interested in, changing the line of
the speech as soon as he needs it. Other public politicians aren’t able to do
so. Modi is not only a public politician; he is also the head of the state.

What is more, he is the same as the majority of Indians: he is a Hindu, and he
doesn’t show off his secularism. In Russia we usually make jokes of the
elements of national identity, but for Indians Modi embodies Indian national
identity. In spite of a great number of different groups in Indian population,
the majority of Indians are rural Hindu, who speak Hindi and other similar
languages. They respect Hinduism, respect the elderly and cherish traditions.
Modi perfectly matches the image of Indian leader. On the one hand he is quite
experienced, on the other, he is energetic, ascetic in everyday life, single as
he wants to devote his life to the country. He creates for himself an image of
an ideal Golden Age leader and at the same time a 21st century leader who
respects traditions and uses an iPhone.

Where does the most well-known element of Indian mass culture – the cinema
stand? There are any prospects for it in Russia?

The elderly grew up with Roger Kapur’s films. They were extremely popular.
Surprisingly enough it may sound but our young population watch Indian films
and TV series (“Baahubali”, for example). In comparison with
Hollywood films, the Bollywood ones are still quite popular. What’s more there
is not only Bollywood films, but also films of other Indian productions.

Nevertheless, these films are much more popular in the immediate neighborhood
and extended neighborhood zones: in Afghanistan, in the Middle East and in
South East Asia. A great deal of Bollywood films is made in Hindustani. It is a
kind of lingua franca for Hindi and Urdu speakers, it uses basic vocabulary,
which is familiar to both Pakistani, and Indians. Afghani and Arabs use these
films to master the language, as they usually watch these films and TV series.

Where does the most well-known element of Indian mass culture – the cinema
stand? There are any prospects for it in Russia?

The elderly grew up with Roger Kapur’s films. They were extremely popular.
Surprisingly enough it may sound but our young population watch Indian films
and TV series (“Baahubali”, for example). In comparison with
Hollywood films, the Bollywood ones are still quite popular. What’s more there
is not only Bollywood films, but also films of other Indian productions.

Nevertheless, these films are much more popular in the immediate neighborhood
and extended neighborhood zones: in Afghanistan, in the Middle East and in
South East Asia. A great deal of Bollywood films is made in Hindustani. It is a
kind of lingua franca for Hindi and Urdu speakers, it uses basic vocabulary,
which is familiar to both Pakistani, and Indians. Afghani and Arabs use these
films to master the language, as they usually watch these films and TV series.

How does India manage
to combine so acute social problems (poverty, terrorism, etc.) and development
of cutting-edge and military technologies? How a country can be so attractive
abroad with such domestic problems?

Frankly, it fails to combine it. No one is happy with the poverty. On the other
hand, a sound economic reform is underway, the middle class is expanding,
poverty, dirt on the streets, lack of electricity and astonishing customs are
disappearing.

India reminds me of the China of 1980s, the country is still poor, but its
economy is ready to skyrocket. The population is becoming richer and the old
problems are being gradually resolved. There is a sparkling difference when you
see Gurugram, Hyderabad and Bengaluru business centers in the midst of suburbs
or jungles where illiterate peasants live. This difference will vanish. The
Indians take it for granted as they can’t do anything about it. They try to
conceal its domestic problems to preserve its image abroad, as any other
country does, I believe. India is a developing, densely populated country, that
avoids rapid decisions.

In conclusion, I would like to mention Indian religious soft power, in particular Modi’s religious diplomacy which is one of a kind. In different times India developed the idea of hindusphere, a Great India. Earlier, in Chola times Indians transferred Hinduism and Buddhism through the whole region, conducting a cultural expansion in the direction of South East Asia.

Under the British Empire another phenomenon came to existence. This is a so called “Indian subempire”, when the vice-king ruled the country and tried to expand its influence. So, Eastern Africa and the Middle East become influenced and controlled by India. After the First world war India seriously considered the plans to annex Iraq and former German part of Eastern Africa, which is Tanzania nowadays. India’s current approaches to the Asian West and the Asian East result from these two epochs of Indian history.

In terms of soft power India took advantages of these two epochs. It is far more active on the East, Modi reminds the country about the Golden Age, periods before the Muslim conquest, and in those times, India was much more active on the East. Today’s idea of the Indian-Pacific region perfectly matches this notion, as it says that India should develop its ties with countries, with which it had ties before the Muslims and the British. These are the Malay Archipelago and the whole South East Asia. But as India also proclaims itself to be the major force in the Indian ocean, it should balance its activities and pay attention to the West. Ties with the countries to the West should be also maintained, India should carry out projects in Africa, buy oil from the Gulf countries. So volens nolens it should cooperate with the countries to the West.

Related

The foreign policy of Pakistan has remained feeble for many years

Sometimes,
we fail because of the obliviousness of our vulnerable aspects. The right
direction and cognizance of flaws lead one to success. Pakistan, at times, is
confronting the worst days. Its population is hard up due to increasing
dearness, unemployment, devaluation of the rupee, and political and economic
mess. Our leaders seem to reprimand previous governments for this mayhem.
Despite, the incumbent government seems avid to reinvigorate the economy,
endeavoring to take on people, and passionately bent on accountability. How
much the government is victorious in dealing with those specters is another
debate. However, the most significant aspect that the government has overlooked
is of its weak foreign policy. Yes! Foreign policy for the progress of a
country is as important as other aspects. But, perhaps, we have disregarded the
foreign policy’s significance; this is also the cause of Pakistan’s economic
turmoil. It is the foreign policy that guards the nation’s national interest.

The foreign
policy of Pakistan has remained feeble for many years. However, ever since the
PTI came into power; there has been speculation that foreign policy has begun
to experience a boon. If one glance around; one will see that Pakistan’s
stalemate with India persists, Pakistan’s terms with Iran are mediocre,
Afghanistan eyes Pakistan as its destabilizer, only China among our neighbors perceives
us as a staunch ally. When it comes to across the continent, our terms with the
US are not valid. However, following the visit of Imran Khan to the US, people
have grown their optimism regarding Pak-US ties. Yes! Imran Khan’s visit to the
US was positive development, but the time will decide the achievement of his
visit. Only the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is there, which helps us during
the time of economic downturn. Therefore, there is an iota improvement in our
foreign policy because we are still unable to establish cordial terms with our
neighbors and other countries.

So several
questions emanate that why we are facing diplomatic isolation irrespective of
our aspiration to secure comprehensive affinities with other nations.

The very
first answer is; aspirations work if one strives hard to make them thriving.

So, next
question emanates what to thrive and how to thrive?

For this
answer, one should have a better comprehension of foreign policy. It is the set
of rules that one nation crafts in dealing with other nation. The sound foreign
policy is the most compelling weapon that ensures any country’s prosperity.
Hence, to make the foreign policy fruitful one should have an art of practicing
diplomacy. It is the diplomacy that would make our aspiration into reality.
Diplomacy is an art to engage with other nation. The sound foreign policy
depends upon the practice of diplomacy.

Consequently,
one must have found the answer that in our foreign policy, it is the feeblest
component. Thus, how to make up deficiencies in the diplomatic course?

According to Rahul Shrivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs of India there are some
tools of diplomacy;
without them, no state can sail on inclusive foreign policy.

The first
tool of diplomacy is a political tool. This tool enables a country to enjoy
substantial diplomatic bonds with another state. Role of the embassy in this
tool is remarkable since the embassy in the host country speculates the
problems between its country and the host country. For this purpose, the head
of the embassy must be astute and able enough to read the trends of the time.
It is the embassy that engineers the meeting between the heads of anchor and
its country. Regrettably, our representatives of embassies have yet remained
ineffective to engineer the state visits of leaders of countries from many
countries. Along with it, our embassies in our neighbor states are inadequate
to address their reservations. To rectify this imperfection, Pakistan needs to
train its diplomats, and choose natively skilled diplomats, who could show the
positive front of their country.

The second
tool of diplomacy is of security. It includes the cooperation of one state with
others in terms of defense, counter-terrorism, intelligence, and nuclear
issues. Unfortunately, Pakistan lags in this specter badly. Pakistan finds no
such ally that could conduct these practices with it. When a country handles
any of the aforementioned practices, it builds and enhances confidence between
states. Pakistan, in this regard, must have to revise its policies.

The third
tool of diplomacy is a commercial tool. The state harness this tool by trading,
investing, and building trade links. This tool helps a country to reinvigorate
its economy. The more participant states, the more benefit they will get.
Unluckily, Pakistan, according to this tool, relies only on China. Despite
China, Pakistan enjoys no privilege to cultivate trade links with other countries.
For this purpose, Pakistani diplomats need a campaign in other countries, which
could inform about the products, goods, agricultural items that Pakistan can
serve other states. Pakistani authorities should also invite other state
delegations to visit our soil, and they should offer the Capitalists of those
countries to invest.

The fourth
tool of diplomacy is the cultural tool. It implies that the artists from one
state should collaborate with the artist from another state. In this way, the
intermingling of culture takes place. But this is only possible when higher
authorities show keen interest. Pakistan is fortunate enough to share common
things in culture with India, Iran, and Afghanistan. The Pak-India diplomatic
row has halted the collaboration of artists from both sides. The application of
the cultural tool in diplomacy helps a lot to bring the states together.

The tools
aforementioned are part and parcel for those who aspire to practice effective
diplomacy. There is no progress in a country without its sound foreign policy;
likewise, there is no soundness in foreign policy without effective diplomacy.
The incumbent foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has assumed this portfolio
for the second time. He is also head and shoulders above all other leaders of
PTI in spite of Imran Khan. Being a senior member of his party, and assuming a
very estimable portfolio, he needs to revive the course of diplomacy.